Stopped reading there. Sorry.

While it is something of a personal attack, the MB thing seems accurate.

This might come down to me (still) not really understanding the religious position of "dismissing science", but I don't see how an extension of "But you do the same thing!" leads to "But you use it yourself every day!" How is accepting a car as a useful byproduct of a "wrong approach" doing the same thing as viewing a car as the useful - perhaps validating - result of a right/working approach?

For one, MB was sort of a special project of mine for a while. I behaved differently towards him than to any other poster, theist or atheist. Once I realized it's a lost cause, he ended up on ignore. So the "bashing" is a thing of the past.

For two, given that a conversation with MB pretty much by force leads to hammering the same point over and over and over, I strongly suspect the nitpickery appears worse than it actually was.

Three, if I had a "thing" of defending "any old nonsense, even stuff I patently disagree with", it should be easy to come up with a number of cases?

This is bull****! I have always been more than happy attack things that theists say and am more than willing to give credit where credit is due to an atheist. I demand that you substantiate this accusation.

LOL

If you calm down, you'll be able to see the context in which that was brought up. It has nothing to do with YOU not being impartial, but Fret and Aaron not being impartial.

That wasnt the part I was agreeing with. You have always been fair to me personally, I just think that if MB said something in that vein about WLC you would be all over him.

lol, sorry I just saw that he was responding to my quote, I only went back and read it because you were responding. Also I thought it would be fun to come down hard on you as you happen to be a reasonable person. I was quite surprised that you were accusing me of such things. Makes more sense now. Please accept my apologies and carry on.

No worries, it happens. The last line made me feel like I was being called into the principals office.

lol, I almost changed that line because the wrong person could take it wrong but I figured you would get a kick out of it.

OK, if your responses to MB were a special project or w/e then a ton of the perceived asymmetry may be based on that (not all of it, cf the Husker fiasco in the other thread just now) particularly as a crapload of your posts have historically been responses to MB. But if that is the case I don't see why you are being so indignant about it. Surely the proper response would be "ah, you probably have that impression because of the way I respond to MB, but that was a special project and not representative of my interactions with other atheists". I dunno, w/e really.

As for other examples, well this is one in itself. Why is it not ok for me to make comments about your posting style when you (in the rejecting science thread) are allowed to make comments about my posting style w/r/t my use of the word "poor" and "petulant"? You'll notice that, apart from correcting you about the connotation of the word "attack", I didn't just give some "oh I stopped reading there" response, but just addressed why I thought Aaron's example was "poor" and that creationists are "petulant". Consistency is what I value, and given that I quite like to be able to use acerbic language where I feel it appropriate, and to comment on posting styles where appropriate, I'm happy to just defend such posts in there own terms. Given that you also use acerbic language and make comments about others posting styles you may want to think about whether you are being consistent here.

This is what I was going to say. That homosexuality is ok because it happens in nature is a response to the assertion (that's not being put forth) that homosexuality is unnatural. At the heart of it is divine command theory basis of morality vs. a libertarian view of morality.

WLC's September newsletter, in which he discusses the dialogues.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/newsl...2013/september

I really wish they would release the second discussion.

i'm fairly dumb, but the only craig/krauss debate I found searching real quick on the site was 2011. Someone help me out.

danke

It took me quite a while to find it myself. The only way to access seems to be through the slider. It is the second slide on the home page for anyone else that cannot find the links.

Sydney.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=V82uGzgoajI

Watching now, thanks.

This moderator is driving me nuts.

I haven't had time to watch yet but I understand she was, by her own admission, unfamiliar with the science, philosophy or theology in the debate. Not sure why they chose her but it seems likely Oppy was chosen for the 3rd because the first two were somewhat sub-par.

Anyway, in his last pod, WLC said he's going to be discussing the dialogs in his next pod as he's had a lot of questions, and my guess is he will have several. I'll post links as they come up - usually late Sunday night.

And he just let them talk, lol. I barely noticed that he was there.

I just got through Sydney and the comment I want to make is to observe that Krauss, the ardent Scientismist, begins his presentation with a quote from the poet, Matthew Arnold, which contains totally non-scientific, certain assertions of an absolute nature about all of reality - hmmm.

Edit: BTW, Krauss took a shot at literary critics near the end of the dialog, basically saying they are a source of "non-knowledge". But Arnold is one of the most eminent of literary critics.

Which was perfect!